Value of a life

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

I read a post in another thread that stated that in the opinion of the poster, all human lives are equal in value in the end.

What sort of criterion do we use to determine value? (I'm not picking on anyone, I'd honestly like to know what the opinions of the people on this board are on how we determine the value of a thing or life)

Personally, I disagree with the idea of every life being equal in value. Assuming that it was true, the consequences would be kind of demotivating. All lives are equal and therefore all actions are equal in value. There would be no good or bad, just 'is'.

I Personally think that this kind of existentiallism is just as bad as determinism (no free will), what is the point of free will if you can't do anything with it?

[Slizor]

Personally, I disagree with the idea of every life being equal in value. Assuming that it was true, the consequences would be kind of demotivating. All lives are equal and therefore all actions are equal in value. There would be no good or bad, just 'is'.

It doesn't follow. If all lives are equal in value (this involves the assumption that lives have value, soething which is iplied) then an action which promotes more life (say killing one person so many people could have organ transplants) would be better. If all lives are equal, then 10 lives has 10x the value of one life.

This is of course assuming that the person is not employing the "sanctity of life" argument, which isn't really philosophy.

I Personally think that this kind of existentiallism is just as bad as determinism (no free will), what is the point of free will if you can't do anything with it?

Again, this doesn't follow. According to your logic, people can do things, they just don't have any value.

[Alejandro1]

At 5/25/03 07:31 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: What sort of criterion do we use to determine value?

It all has to do with how a person can contribute to society. If a person is working hard at a job that produces a good or performs a service for the rest of society, than that person has more value than someone who is unemployed and on welfare.

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/25/03 07:31 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I read a post in another thread that stated that in the opinion of the poster, all human lives are equal in value in the end.

What sort of criterion do we use to determine value? (I'm not picking on anyone, I'd honestly like to know what the opinions of the people on this board are on how we determine the value of a thing or life)

I believe that all men are CREATED equal. Our choices in life affect its value. If you help people, and selflessly give money and aid to others, then your life value goes up. If you are a racist, trying to kill people because of their colour, then your live value goes down.

There isn't a one to 100 scale we can put people on, its just a general thing.

[Alejandro1]

At 5/25/03 10:22 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: I believe that all men are CREATED equal. Our choices in life affect its value. If you help people, and selflessly give money and aid to others, then your life value goes up.

I know the value of giving to some people; my class raised money and sent supplies to some of our troops in Iraq. I question the value of giving though: are we really helping these people out or are we just giving our hard earned cash to indolent people who leech off the welfare system?

If you are a racist, trying to kill people because of their colour, then your live value goes down.

Why just the racists? There are other psycho freaks out there (like Charles Manson) who just kill people for the fun of it or others who rape and kill.

[arnamenta]

I agree that all people begin as equals. It is the actions of our lives that determine our end value.

That said, we don't all have to live like Mother Theresa to have value. I think that so long as we do the best we can with what we are given in life we're valuable.

We don't need to be utterly selfless. Nor should we be completely selfish. I think there's a median there in which we find value and happiness. Of course, the Doctorine of the Mean is a useful philosophy to follow in all things, I believe.

[FUNKbrs]

*DAG light is on*

Since I'm an american, lets talk cash here. Are we talking about value to society or about value to one's self? Value to society would mainly be taxes paid plus volunteer work. Value to ones self is priceless.

Because my life is not replaceable to me, it is the criterion by which all other value is placed. I spend 40 out of every 168 hours working. That means that money ($18K for average american male per year) is worth 24% of a human life (rough estimate). If we say the average life is worth $72K a year, by hourly human value rates. 65 year life, minus 18 growing years equals 47 years. 47 multiplied by $72K equals $3384K per human life, assuming sleep counts for value. Cash value of a human life is three million three hundred and eighty four thousand dollars (only in america, of course).

[Lyddiechu]

who am i to determine the value of someone's life? am i god? no, no one can determine the value of anyone else's life, its impossible, since you defenition of value could be completely wrong by someone else's standards. its all about point of view.

my personal point of view is that a poor, schizophrenic homeless man with no education who walks around picking up cans and recyling them is of more value to society than some oil tycoon. the homeless man is more valuable because he is actually helping the rest of humanity and preserving the land that is responsible for his sustinence instead of raping the earth for a commodity which does nothing but cause war.

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/25/03 10:56 AM, alejandro1 wrote: I know the value of giving to some people; my class raised money and sent supplies to some of our troops in Iraq. I question the value of giving though: are we really helping these people out or are we just giving our hard earned cash to indolent people who leech off the welfare system?

That is a good point. I know some people on Sicial Security (Welfare) that should be shot, and some who have been on the dole scince they were 16, and haven't done a day of work in their lives.

Why just the racists? There are other psycho freaks out there (like Charles Manson) who just kill people for the fun of it or others who rape and kill.

Not just rascists, paedophiles, muggers and other nasty people too.

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/25/03 12:02 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: *DAG light is on*

Oh god...

Because my life is not replaceable to me, it is the criterion by which all other value is placed. I spend 40 out of every 168 hours working. That means that money ($18K for average american male per year) is worth 24% of a human life (rough estimate). If we say the average life is worth $72K a year, by hourly human value rates. 65 year life, minus 18 growing years equals 47 years. 47 multiplied by $72K equals $3384K per human life, assuming sleep counts for value. Cash value of a human life is three million three hundred and eighty four thousand dollars (only in america, of course).

I think you're insane, but that is a good way to put it. What about the people in Ethiopia? They do no work, are their lives worth less than yours? $3,400,000 approximately then? Bill Gates owns $120,000,000,000 he could buy approx. 35,000 men then.

Not bad.

[Kenney333]

I do agree that all lives are equal, and as for the value of one, i just think its not killing one to save another is wrong

[FUNKbrs]

At 5/25/03 02:31 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: I think you're insane, but that is a good way to put it. What about the people in Ethiopia? They do no work, are their lives worth less than yours? $3,400,000 approximately then? Bill Gates owns $120,000,000,000 he could buy approx. 35,000 men then.

Not bad.

*DAG light on*

You know, by the scale I'm using people on welfare are worth more dead. In fact, if we take the poor, and feed them to the hungry, what we have is a self solving problem. Poor people could also sell their children for the local cash value for a life. Why has noone thought of this before.....

Oh yeah, they did. They called it cannibalism and slavery, and it worked for thousands of years before this "civilization" fad of morals came along. Look what happens when we ignore ancient solutions to ancient problems, eh? Homeless poor and starving people. At least slaves are kept fed, so they can do a decent days work. As for the crippled and old worthless people, well, the slaves have got to eat SOMETHING, dont they?

[Jimsween]

At 5/25/03 12:02 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: *DAG light is on*

This is the stupidest thing in the world, if your not willing to take responsibility for your actions than dont annoy us by doing this.

[Lyddiechu]

umm jimmyboy.. the whole point of the dag is to spark political debate.. meaning funk, by putting on the dag light, is bringing up a point of view that, even though it is not his own, should be seen for the good of the general political debating environment

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

Slizor, I apologize for the lack of clarity in the phrasing of my post. I by no means believe that all lives are equally valuable. I was merely stating a few of the logical consequences of that kind of ethical standpoint.

Personally I believe something kind of like the DAG suggestion, but a little more refined.

Dr. A

[Lyddiechu]

arbitrary you have the most hi-fuckin-larious signature i have seen in a long time.. ohhh man.. luddites, jeez!

are the neo-luddites still just some crazy bastards in england or have they spread now to the rest of the world (god forbid)?

[Jimsween]

At 5/25/03 08:51 PM, Lyddiechu wrote: umm jimmyboy.. the whole point of the dag is to spark political debate.. meaning funk, by putting on the dag light, is bringing up a point of view that, even though it is not his own, should be seen for the good of the general political debating environment

No, by putting up the light funk is telling everyone that it is not his views so not to face any consequences for saying something stupid. If he does that it defeats the purpose of the dag because nobody will pay any attention when he has the dag light on. It's like a protester wearing a mask or a martyr leaving the bomb and running away.

[Jimsween]

And the opinions that he states are not even reasonable so have no point in being seen by the political environment.

[Shih]

All lives have the same inherent value because all life posesses potentiality. Each and every life is capable of altering every other life it comes into contact with. This powerful potentiality that all life holds is what grants it value.
While individual specific actions may have more value than another action this has no bearing on the life itself, because there is no way of predicting what action will have more of an impact tnah another. For example: You are prsented with a big red button that will launch a nuclear war ending human life. At first glance thie next action you take seems to be of the utmost signifigance, however there is still no way of predicting what will happen. If you push that button maybe you will start a war or maybe every nuke on earth will short out simultaneously. Unlikely, yes but also well within the realms of possibility.
It is this inherent instability that grants life value. Since no actions full consequences are predictable it must be assumed that each life holds the same ability to alter the world and improve or harm it.

[House-Of-Leaves]

What this is basically about is what's known as 'utilitarian bioethics'. Something that saddens me greatly.

It's too late (early?) to explain why right now, exactly. But I'll put it this way: utilitiarian bioethics state that any person that doesn't give equally can be euthanised. There's exceptions, apparently, but how can we, as human beings, put monetary value or potentiality on another human being's life? Who are we to say who's worth what?

I'm sorry, but I refuse to think that just because someone isn't giving as much as the next person makes them worth less than the next person. I can be logical about a lot of things, but I find human life more precious than that.

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/25/03 06:09 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: *DAG light on*

You know, by the scale I'm using people on welfare are worth more dead. In fact, if we take the poor, and feed them to the hungry, what we have is a self solving problem. Poor people could also sell their children for the local cash value for a life. Why has noone thought of this before.....

There are some people on Welfare/Social Security that might be better off dead, for the goosd of the world. The lazy slobs who signup at 16 and do no work ever.

Oh yeah, they did. They called it cannibalism and slavery, and it worked for thousands of years before this "civilization" fad of morals came along. Look what happens when we ignore ancient solutions to ancient problems, eh? Homeless poor and starving people. At least slaves are kept fed, so they can do a decent days work. As for the crippled and old worthless people, well, the slaves have got to eat SOMETHING, dont they?

Alright... FUNK... you're kinda freaking me out now. Please don't say you are actually suggesting that we feed the old to the hungry.

Old people taste funny.

[Nirvana13666]

A life is a life and that is why I think things like the death penalty are wrong. No one can escape death therefore I think all lives are equal in importance. As for quality, it depends what you have contributed to mankind or how many people you touched during your existence. Now “bad apples” of our society have burdened us with their existence but if for example pedophiles didn’t exist we wouldn’t have certain laws passed like Megan’s law to help us prevent any future attacks. This is a pretty shaky topic that is why I don’t have stable answer.

[PreacherJ]

At 5/25/03 06:09 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: *DAG light on*

You know, by the scale I'm using people on welfare are worth more dead. In fact, if we take the poor, and feed them to the hungry, what we have is a self solving problem. Poor people could also sell their children for the local cash value for a life. Why has noone thought of this before.....

Oh yeah, they did. They called it cannibalism and slavery, and it worked for thousands of years before this "civilization" fad of morals came along. Look what happens when we ignore ancient solutions to ancient problems, eh? Homeless poor and starving people. At least slaves are kept fed, so they can do a decent days work. As for the crippled and old worthless people, well, the slaves have got to eat SOMETHING, dont they?

That, my friend, is hilarious. It's also a great concept, if you think about it... I mean, I'd give up my dead body for poor folks to eat if I died. I won't need it. Just burn my head and sprinkle me over Ireland or something, if you really need to do some sort of closure ritual. Really, I mean, what's wrong with cannibalism (aside from his blind hatred and ignorance, ha ha)? It's actually a pretty good point. What's so immoral about eating human? Just because society deems it wrong, doesn't make it so. It used to be "wrong" to be black, or gay, or anything other than "white male landowner" in this country!

"I'd eat people if it were legal, I'd eat people if it were legal" -Reel Big Fish

That being said, you wouldn't like the taste of me. I assume I'd be all stringy and tough. Now Shrike, on the other hand, I think has the right meat/fat ratio for some damn good steak...

*Passes up chance to make a sexual innuendo at one of the ladies with the phrase "eating someone"*

Word.

[FUNKbrs]

PJ, I feel inspired. Suicide IS the most selfish act a human being can make. Why? Because almost every suicide results in perfectly good organs for donation gone to waste. Really want to give it all up? Think you are a huge drain on society? Prove'em all wrong. Donate your perfectly good organs while they are still functioning to productive members of society. That way even the most worthless bastard can contribute to society AND give up the cares of this cruel life. Legalize suicide for the purposes of organ donation en masse. How many lives could be saved from one suicide? 4, just counting liver, heart, kidneys, and bone marrow, let alone arteries, skin grafts, and blood. Now that's cannibalism we all can agree is moral and productive.

logos